BRANDS AS EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP. 49 



admissible where there is evidence that its mother bore such 

 brand, though the calf did not.** 



The presumption that animals belonging to one person 

 but branded in the recorded brand of another shall, as to 

 creditors, be deemed the property of the latter, is not con- 

 clusive but may be rebutted by proof.*® One who places his 

 brand on another's cattle and mingles them with his own has 

 the burden of identifying those cattle ; otherwise he should be 

 subjected to the loss.*" If the brand is not recorded till after 

 the theft of the animal, it is admissible in evidence but is not 

 sufficient to prove ownership.*^ Though the statute provides 

 that a person shall have but one brand for his cattle, yet if they 

 are removed from the county where the brand is recorded 

 and for any reason he has a different brand recorded in the 

 new county, the new brand does not invalidate the old one 

 nor deprive the owner of any benefit accruing from its regis- 

 tration.*^ 



A "road brand," as distinguished from a "range brand," is 

 one required to be placed upon cattle before they are removed 

 to a market outside of the State, and it must be recorded in 

 the county from which they are to be driven, before their re- 

 moval. If recorded after they are driven out, it is inadmis- 

 sible in evidence to prove ownership.** 



The recorded brand must correspond and be identical with 

 the brand found on the animal, and the latter must appear on 



=" Black V. State (Tex. Cr.), 41 S. W. Rep. 606; Thurmond v. State, 37 

 Tex. Cr. 422. 



™ Rankin v. Bell, 85 Tex. 28. 



"Johnson v. Hocker (Tex. Civ. App.), 39 S. W. Rep. 406. 



"Crowell V. State, 24 Tex. App. 404; Unsell v. State (Tex. Cr.), 45 

 S. W. Rep. 1022; Turner v. State (Tex. Cr.), Ibid. 1020; Chesnut v. Peo., 

 21 Colo. 512. But see Harvey v. State, 21 Tex. App. 178. 



As to evidence of the date of the registration of a brand, see Dickson v. 

 Ty. (Ariz.) 56 Pac. Rep. 971. 



" McClure v. Sheek's Heirs, 68 Tex. 426. 



That the record of a second brand while the first remains unabandoned 

 is not admissible to prove ownership, see Unsell v. State, supra. 



'^ Crowell V. State, supra. 

 4 



